By Amrita Jash

China-India Border Dispute: Stabilizing Military Relations is Key to Peace

The unresolved boundary question has evolved to
become the characteristic feature of India-China relations. Having been
peaceful and stable for over six decades since the 1962 War, it was the 2017
Doklam stand-off that brought back the boundary dilemma to the fore.
“Maintaining peace and tranquility at the border” has been a constant rhetoric,
but this has been tested given the episodes of incursions. What has largely
been ignored is the “military aspect” of the fragile relations.

In this regard, setting the tone to the first
ever “informal
Summit” between India and China, China’s Ministry of National Defense
stated:

“Despite some difficulties and obstacles in the
bilateral military relationship, we are willing to deepen understanding,
enhance mutual trust, properly handle differences, and incessantly accumulate
positive energy for the healthy and stable development of military ties under
the guidance of the important consensus reached between leaders of both
countries.”

The emphasis on the “military relationship” highlights
the crux of the problem. Given the widening strategic distrust and perception
gap, it remains indisputable that the heart of the problem lies in the
misperceptions born at the military level.

In the backdrop of Doklam, the risk of the shift
in the status-quo has further exacerbated the existing security dilemma between
the two states. This has resulted into two significant departures. First, rather
than pushing the envelope towards confrontation, Doklam acted as a test case
wherein both New Delhi and Beijing tested each other’s resolve — suggesting a
change in their patterns of behavior. The past episodes of friction in areas
such as Daulat Beg Oldie, Depsang, Chumar,
Trig Heights, Pangong Tso Lake and others in the western sector, to that of
Asaphila, Samdurongchu, Changtze and others in Arunachal Pradesh did not result
in military confrontation between India and China. Second, it was limited to
the scope of their disputed boundary which was altered with Doklam. This
episode has extended the scope of the boundary dispute as it was the first time
that India and China got involved in a military stand-off in a terrain that
falls beyond their disputed boundary, and most significantly, involved a third
party — Bhutan. These two departures from the past hold significant
implications for future scenarios in India-China relations.

Although the proactive diplomatic exchanges have put the
tensed relations on track, there still remains a large room for improvement
given the vacuum that now exists. What
contributes to this vacuum is the misperception which is primarily driven by
the logic of “assuming the worst.” These assumptions result in insecurity which
then leaves no room for compromise. Taking lessons from Doklam, this
vacuum demands the diversification of the dialogue mechanism. Given this dominant psyche, to assess that the first-ever
“informal summit” between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese
President Xi Jinping at Wuhan on April 27-28, 2018 will bring an immediate “peace”
comes with certain apprehensions. A temporary settlement will fail to call for
lasting peace, and as long as the boundary question remains unresolved, the
likelihood of further tensions is always high, if not low. Here, the watchword
is — how to then deal with future contingencies.

The key takeaway from the Modi-Xi dialogue lies
in the need to act on providing “strategic guidance to their respective militaries to strengthen
communication in order to build trust and mutual understanding and enhance
predictability and effectiveness in the management of border affairs.”

So far, all such contingencies have been dealt
through diplomatic channels and established mechanisms such as border personnel
meetings, flag meetings, and meetings of the Working Mechanism for Consultation
and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs. However, such mechanisms just
helped to quell the risks but do not provide a long-term solution as evitable
in the case of Doklam. Given these new dynamics, the question of resolving the
boundary question has become an imminent challenge, wherein, the biggest obstacle
lies in the limited options. What can be done? Although it is the political dialogue that is given more precedence, the
need of the hour lies in adopting mechanisms at the military level between the two countries — the very area where the
problem lies.

Given this territorial burden on the bilateral
ties, and most importantly, in the aftermath of the Doklam episode, it has become
more imperative for both New Delhi and Beijing to engage in talks than ever
before. These talks should not just be relegated to the so-called symbolic
“border-talks” but should instead be greater exchanges between the two parties
at multiple levels. Both New Delhi and Beijing have shown mutual interest in recalibrating
their fractured ties. In this regard, the most important step forward has been
that the Wuhan
Summit underscored the importance
of maintaining peace and tranquillity in all areas of the India-China border
region in the “larger interest” of the overall development of bilateral
relations.

Reflecting on the military aspect, the key
takeaway from the Modi-Xi dialogue lies in the need to act on providing “strategic guidance to their
respective militaries to strengthen communication in order to build trust and
mutual understanding and enhance predictability and effectiveness in the
management of border affairs.” What makes this an important step forward
is the fact that the vulnerability caused
due to the security dilemma is most visible at this level which has resulted in
the upped ante for operational readiness. Being the most sensitive arena of the
problem, it is therefore more justified for military exchanges to be made more
of a norm in India-China relations. Furthermore,
imperatives have been directed for both “militaries to earnestly implement
various confidence building measures agreed upon between the two sides,
including the principle of mutual and equal security, and strengthen existing
institutional arrangements and information sharing mechanisms to prevent
incidents in border regions” — significantly adding to the rationale of
stabilizing the India-China military equation. Following up on this, the recent
call for setting up a hotline between their respective headquarters exemplifies
the conviction to make the significant changes at the structural level.

These changes mark a new
impetus to the resolution process. Filling the existential gaps is the need of
the hour, and in this case, these are the perennial misperceptions at the
military level. Even if such initiatives do not settle the dispute, such mechanisms will help to quell
the unwarranted risks due to misperceptions. Furthermore, they will bring peace
by bridging the perception gap in the relations.